 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Fratis v. Owens, Nos. 05-1054 and 05-1135,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a brief order, for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court, the appeals court upheld the denial of a preliminary injunction in a prisoner's § 1983 lawsuit challenging a plan to close a women's correctional facility. Also, prisoner had not exhausted her administrative remedies.
|
|||||
| Tauer v. Werholtz, No. 05-3196,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The denial of an inmate's Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion challenging the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 action for failing to exhaust administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1997e(a) was an abuse of discretion because the trial court failed to consider an earlier grievance that was the basis of the motion.
|
|||||
| United States v. Culp, No. 05-3283,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where inmate sought reduction in his sentence after his conviction had been affirmed, he had been denied postconviction relief, and he had been denied leave to file second or successive § 2255 motion, as the district court held, the district court plainly lacked jurisdiction to reduce the inmate's sentence per 18 U.S.C.S. § 3582.
|
|||||
| United States v. Gabaldon, No. 05-3231,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The denial of a motion to suppress was affirmed because a deputy's line of questioning after he issued a citation occurred in a consensual encounter since the fact that the person posing the questions was a uniformed police officer was insufficient to prove that defendant was seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
|
|||||
| United States v. Johnson, No. 04-7049, No. 04-7050, No. 04-7054,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendants held a bank employee hostage overnight until she could open the vault, the district court erred in granting an upward sentencing departure, due in part to the sophistication of the robbery, because a jury applying a reasonable doubt standard could not reasonably have found that the case was exceptional in terms of sophistication.
|
|||||
| United States v. Leonard, No. 04-6361,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was charged with second degree murder under 18 U.S.C.S. § 1111, his driving record and medication history were properly admitted under Fed. R. Evid. 401, 403, and 404(b) because, inter alia, the citations for driving with a suspended license and the medication history were relevant for establishing malice aforethought.
|
|||||
| United States v. Ochoa-Fernandez, No. 04-2276,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence for violating 8 U.S.C.S. § 1326(a)(1), (2) was remanded because the district court relied on a presentence report in determining whether defendant's conviction for violating Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-404 was a crime of violence under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A).
|
|||||
| Utah Envtl. Cong. v. Bosworth, No. 03-4251,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An environmental group was entitled to vacatur of the USFS's authorization of a timber-harvesting project because USFS did not meet its monitoring responsibilities under 36 C.F.R. § 219.19 (1999) when it failed to collect actual, quantitative population data on management indicator species in riparian and cavity-nester guilds.
|
|||||
| Wasko v. Moore, No. 05-2184,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An award of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 sanctions was affirmed because the district court properly followed an appeals court's order by issuing an order to show cause, providing an individual with an opportunity to brief why he did not violate Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(1), reviewing time records, and holding a hearing on the order to show cause.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
